Re: Comments on draft-ietf-msgtrk-mtqp-03.txt

At today's mini-BOF, we did not discuss this issue. I'm leaning towards
the reversed domain name solution.

	Tony

Tony Hansen wrote:
> Gregory Neil Shapiro wrote:
> 
> > ---
> >
> > 10.  IANA Considerations
> >
> > Vendor-specific options MUST be registered with IANA?  I thought the whole
> > point of vendor options was like that of 'X' ESMTP extensions:
> >
> > RFC 2821             Simple Mail Transfer Protocol            April 2001
> > 2.2.2 Definition and Registration of Extensions
> >
> >    In addition, any EHLO keyword value starting with an upper or lower
> >    case "X" refers to a local SMTP service extension used exclusively
> >    through bilateral agreement.  Keywords beginning with "X" MUST NOT be
> >    used in a registered service extension.  Conversely, keyword values
> >    presented in the EHLO response that do not begin with "X" MUST
> >    correspond to a standard, standards-track, or IESG-approved
> >    experimental SMTP service extension registered with IANA.  A
> >    conforming server MUST NOT offer non-"X"-prefixed keyword values that
> >    are not described in a registered extension.
> >
> > If that is the case, then they should not be registered with IANA.  Perhaps
> > we want to steal some of the above text for this document.
> 
> I meant to say that the vendor name must be registered, as is done with
> MIME content types.
> 
> Another option is to go the java route and use a reversed domain name:
> 
>         vnd.com.example.option1
> 
> This avoids the IANA registration issue entirely, under the assumption
> that only the owners of a domain would use their domain.